The Biblical Case for Present Revelation
Letter to a Cessationist Pastor
September 28, 1988
My writing you is sort of a follow-up to our visit together the other week. First, I want you to know how much I appreciated your coming to me on Sunday morning to restore our relationship over the earlier discussion concerning “tongues” and whether or not there is still present revelation. Your coming to me gave me a new respect for you that I didn’t have before.
While there is great profit in discussing issues, I believe we will be judged one day, more for how we handled our relationships. For we all grow, which means we all change over a lifetime in how we see the issues.
So how we handle each other over the issues and not where we stand on the issues themselves—this is what I believe God will be looking for at the last day. When you came to me on Sunday, it showed me that you put relationship above issue too. I appreciated that—and I believe God is pleased also.
When we were first talking about tongues and present revelation, you expressed an openness to talk about it again. That’s why I’m writing now. I thought it might be helpful if I could more fully explain my own openness to present revelation. My purpose here is not to try to convince you or persuade you to see what I see. (Only God can convince people or bring them to see something a given way.) My purpose is just to give my own testimony about it—about how I am able to accept present revelation as for today.
I will just share how I have come to see it—and I will give reference to Scripture. If nothing more, this will help you appreciate where I come from in my thinking—why I can think as I do. Knowing how important a “scriptural case” would be to you rather than just my saying “the Lord speaks to me,” I want to zero-in on what I see with respect to Scripture.
One thing helpful to establish at the start is this: No matter what kind of charismatic experience one talks about—whether tongues, or prophecy, or healing, or any other supernatural manifestation—the bottom line to all of it is present revelation from God. All “tongues” is predicated upon the possibility of present revelation (whether or not understood.) So is “healing.” God is said to reveal who has what illness or how to pray for a certain illness.
All charismatic experience is inseparable from the possibility of present revelation. Therefore, it is unnecessary to speak specifically to each kind of charismatic experience. It is enough to talk about present revelation. If there is no present revelation, then there is no other valid charismatic experience either. If there is present revelation, it is unnecessary to establish the possibility of any other charismatic experience.
So now we come to the Bible. What does it have to say about the possibility of present on-going revelation? As importantly, what does it not have to say?
I ask that last question for an important reason. You see, one thing I have found common to many people who argue a point over scripture is that they are not really arguing from scripture, but rather from scriptural silence. Also, they tend to argue from certain unspoken presuppositions about Scripture, but not from actual scripture. Let me give you a side-light example of what I mean:
One church-group I have been involved with is called the “brethren.” Like all denominations, they hold to particular beliefs which they call “scriptural.” For instance, they believe it is “unscriptural” to use musical instruments in their worship service. When asked why, they answer, “You can’t show it to me in the New Testament where the church used instruments. All references are to the human voice only [Ex.- Col. 3:16].”
All right. This argument is really not one from scripture, but from silence. The scripture doesn’t speak anywhere to the issue of musical instruments in church. It doesn’t say yes. It doesn’t say no. It says nothing. Therefore, this doctrine is not based on what scripture says, but on what it doesn’t say. It is an argument from silence.
In turn, this argument is really based on an unspoken presupposition about Scripture. That presupposition is this: “If it doesn’t appear in scripture, it is unscriptural.”
Now this too is nothing Scripture speaks to. There is no scripture anywhere that even hints that unless something has already appeared before in scripture it is unscriptural. There’s nothing that says, “Unless God first has written it down, He can’t do it.” If that were true, God could have never done anything outside the Law of Moses or beyond it. There could have been no grace through Jesus Christ beyond the penalty of the Law.
So that is the first thing I look at what the Bible specifically speaks to and doesn’t speak to—without adding arguments from silence based on human presuppositions about scripture. This is very important when we begin considering the matter of present revelation.
But also, there is a second thing I have to look at when coming to the Bible. I believe you and I both agree that God doesn’t change, and that therefore the New Testament is a book for all people for all time. It is as valid for us as it was for the first readers. The time lapse doesn’t change the Bible’s relevance to us (as many even now say: “that was true in the beginning, but for us it is different.”)
This being so, I believe it is not merely enough to know what the Bible says, but in order to have a true understanding of what it says, we have to enter into the understanding of the people to whom it was first written. And unless what we understand by it is able to harmonize with what they would have understood by it, then our understanding is faulty. It is not truly biblical.
We have inserted an artificial time-change factor to justify a different understanding. We say that it meant one thing for first century readers, and another thing for us. No. For our understanding of Scripture to be true, we must enter into the minds of the writers and their first readers and it must harmonize.
This then is how I approach the Bible. I read what it says, what it doesn’t say, and I enter into the mental context of the first readers as well as the writers. I put myself “in their shoes” so to speak. And if whatever I have to say about an issue concerning Scripture doesn’t satisfy these criteria, then I have to throw it out. I know it is not truly biblical but is rather based on human presuppositions about scripture and has been altered by time to satisfy some form of unbelief on my part.
Having said all this, now I come to share what I see concerning the possibility of present on-going revelation from God. Simply this: when I see what the New Testament says, what it doesn’t say, and I enter into the minds of the first readers, I am forced to conclude that present revelation is an on-going reality to be entered into by all believers.
By contrast, every argument I have ever heard against present revelation is either based on scriptural silence, and/or human presupposition about scripture (ie, using scripture to justify an already pre-meditated conclusion) and/or is unable to harmonize with the understanding of the first readers. It requires a double standard of interpretation (meaning one thing to first century readers and something else to us.) It is inconsistent.
While I have found that, when read through the eyes of first century readers, the scriptures absolutely mandate the reality of present revelation til the coming of the Lord, I have found that every argument against present revelation is based on scriptures, none of which speak to the issue, but which are only indirectly related to the issue, and are instead “adjusted” to fit pre-determined conclusions and inconsistent premises.
No one has succeeded at showing me a single scripture that directly speaks to the fact that God has ceased to speak directly to men and that the New Testament canon is the last word God has spoken to this age. It just isn’t there.
Evaluating the Arguments
From here, let me share just a few of the pro and con arguments as examples of what I have found to be true. I want to start with the “pros,” but first, let me speak to the “con” you shared with me. You referred to Heb 1:1-2:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath [past completed act] in these last days spoken unto us by His Son…”
This argument against present revelation is to me a typical example of the kind of argument that 1) does not speak to the issue, and 2) shoots itself in the foot by its inconsistency.
If one attempts to use this verse to demonstrate the invalidity of revelation past Jesus Christ, then to be consistent, he has to invalidate the entire New Testament (including Heb. 1:1-2) all of which was written after Jesus spoke, except for those passages that specifically quote Jesus Christ in the Gospels while He walked on the earth in person.
Not only does the whole canon itself become invalid, but all of the recorded events of revelation in Acts and the claims of Paul to revelation in his letter are invalid—for these all transpired through men after Jesus left earth. (Ex: Ac 21:11- Agabus couldn’t have received this revelation because God completed speaking through Jesus about 30 years prior.)
But if we are to accept that God still spoke through the prophets in Acts after Jesus left, and accept that He spoke through the scripture writers after Jesus left, then it is impossible to use Heb. 1:1-2 to say that God (Jesus) has ceased speaking by His Spirit to anyone else since the fathers. It obviously can’t mean what it is being used to say (The writer of Hebrews himself says as much in 2:3-4) and simply doesn’t speak to the issue.
Arguments For Present Revelation
Before looking at more “con” arguments, let’s look at the positive “pro” arguments. These arguments are based on scriptures that speak plainly to the issue of revelation, and when read through the eyes of the first readers (with whom we are one), provide for me incontrovertible evidence for present revelation til the Lord comes. Consider:
1. Jesus to disciples [us]:
“ But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you.” Mt. 10:20-21
This is present revelation. It has nothing to do with reference to Scripture. It is the direct speaking of God. If it doesn’t apply to us, then neither does the verse 30 in the same passage which tells us all our hairs are numbered.
2. Jesus to disciples [us]:
“But when the Comforter is come… He shall testify of me… He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come…” Jn. 15:26; 16:13 (etc.)
This is the promise of ongoing revelation. Again, no delimiting reference to scripture. It is the Spirit directly speaking. This promise is directly linked to 20th century (post-apostolic) believers in Jn. 17:20 through Jesus’ prayer for all of us. If this promise of ongoing revelation does not apply to us, then neither does any other promise in the entire discourse (Jn. 14-17), including “I go to prepare a place for you” (14:2)
3. Peter to Jews in Jerusalem:
“This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pout out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the lard shall be saved… For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the lord our god shall call.” Ac. 2:16-21, 39
Here in this comprehensive discourse outlining the plan of salvation throughout the entire Church Age, Peter presents the promise of ongoing present revelation as part of the total package. Every question is answered: What, Who, When (ie, How long)
A. What – present revelation through prophecy, dream, vision
B. Who – all flesh, as many as the Lord shall call (ie, not just Jews)
C. When – in the last days (agreed to have begun then and still continuing). To further explain how long, we are able to say, as long as it is yet possible for the sun to turn dark (which still has yet to happen) or even better, as long as the promise is out: “whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
In other words, as long as it is possible to call on the Lord’s name for salvation, it is possible to receive present revelation through vision, dream, and prophecy—all throughout the duration of the last days. The promises are all of one and commensurate with each other. To deny the possibility of present revelation is to deny the promise of salvation in calling on the Lord’s name, or ie, to say in effect, the last days are over.
It is hard for me to see how such a comprehensive discourse outlining the course for the whole Church Age could be any plainer about the reality of ongoing revelation.
4. Paul to the Romans [us]:
“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” Rom. 12:6
Paul takes for granted that believers are walking in the light of ongoing revelation by the Spirit through the gift of prophecy. When read through the eyes of the immediate hearers, what question is there? If this exhortation does not apply to us now, then neither does any other exhortation in Romans. It is all of one.
5. Paul to Corinthians [us]:
“Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ…” I Cor. 1:6-8 Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren, I would not have you ignorant…But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom…the word of knowledge…faith gifts of healing…working of miracles…prophecy…discerning of spirits…divers kinds of tongues…interpretation of tongues…And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues… covet earnestly the best gifts… I Cor. 12:1,7-10,28,31 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy…He that prophesieth edifieth the church. i would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied…if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest…How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying… Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. for ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted…Wherefore, brethren covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” I Cor. 14:1,3,5,24-26,29-31,39
Here, like Peter’s discourse, we have a comprehensive passage outlining the what, who and how long of present revelation. Paul’s discussion speaks specifically to the functioning of revelation in the church meeting itself. His stated purpose is to establish order in the functioning of divine revelation (not eradicate it). More closely we see:
A. What: present revelation in the form of giftings. That all the giftings are BY THE SPIRIT speaks to the fact of their supernaturalness, not human talent or intelligence (ch. 12). He specifically identifies PROPHECY as the gift that reveals THE SECRETS OF THE HEART. So this is not mere preaching. It is divine revelation. Also notice, this has no reference to Scripture. It is purely of the Spirit.
B. Who: “all,” ie, all in the church—immediately to the Corinthians, then to all believers to whom the book is given to learn from (ie, us). When it comes to encouraging present revelation, Paul paints with a broad brush. In ch. 12, he expects “every man” to have some access to at least one form of supernatural (“By the Spirit”) gifting. Three times in the whole passage he exhorts all believers to desire or covet prophecy (the best gift). He says he desires that they might all prophesy and leaves that possibility open (“if all prophesy” 14:24). Again in 14:26 he leaves open the possibility of “every one of you” to “have a revelation.” Given that possibility, his only desire here is to provide order for its vast expression (not to quench it.) Now, if this vast section on present revelation in ch. 12 and 14 is not for all believers for all time, neither then is ch. 13 on charity.
C. When (How long): Paul opens his letter in ch 1 telling them (us) that his instruction (on revelational gifting) is to see them through until “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” for the purpose of confirming them in blamelessness to that time. Since that time has not arrived, it is apparent that this purpose and the giftings of revelation given for it are still in force (this agrees with Peter’s discourse). Paul more specifically addresses this issue of time in in ch 13, a passage I didn’t quote but will now: “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know (present tense) in part, and we prophesy (present tense) in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away…. For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I also am known.” 13:8-10,12
Paul is citing two points of time: “now” and “then.” He says that divine revelation is for “now,” but “then” it will cease, vanish, be done away.
When we line up all the factors under these time words, we easily see when “now’ is and when “then” is:
- prophecy, tongues, knowledge
- shall fail, cease, vanish
- in part
- that which is perfect
(see also Eph. 4:13 in no. 7 below)
- see through glass darkly
- see face to face
- know in part
- know as known
When all laid out like this, it is very plain and obvious that present revelation is given to function until the coming of the Lord when we may perfectly know Him as He knows us, seeing Him face to face (see I. Jn. 3:2).
Therefore we are still in the “now” period. When you read this through the eyes of the first readers, it is confirmed. If we say the “now” period is over, then we are saying that all I Corinthians is over (ie, has no application to us, since it was written in the “now” period). Also, we must contend that all knowledge has ceased as well. (Has it?)
6. Paul to Ephesians [us]:
“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know…” Eph. 1:17-18
This is a prayer for access to supernatural revelation. It has nothing to do with scripture or natural intelligence. It is an appeal to God for supernatural illumination by the Spirit, for divine knowledge--so that the Ephesians (we) may see what Paul saw by the same illumination concerning God. (Were mere access to Scripture enough, Paul wouldn’t have prayed this.)
7. Paul to Ephesians [us]:
“and he gave some…prophets…For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph. 4:11-13
Paul tells the Ephesians (us) that the gifts and offices (here, “prophet,” hence, access to present revelation) are given until the church reaches total perfection or maturity.
No matter what kind of maturity is referred to, the Church has obviously not reached it, for new converts are added every day to this time. Therefore, not until the last convert has entered this perfection shall apostles, prophets, or access to immediate revelation be done away. This totally agrees with what Paul told us in I Cor. 13, and adds special definition to the word “perfect” in that passage.
8. Paul to Timothy:
“This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare…. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” I. Tim. 1:18; 4:14
“Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” II Tim. 1:6-7
Paul’s letters to Timothy are considered a “handbook for pastors.” They are used as a model for pastoral practice to this day. Yet a key ingredient in Paul’s exhortation was his instructing Timothy to depend upon supernatural spiritual impartations of power, love and soundmindedness given through Paul’s laying on of hands, and also to depend on prophecies (present revelation) as part of his complete arsenal of pastoral equipping.
[For the record, this exhortation to depend on prophecy is given equal footing with exhortation to depend on personal access to Scripture given in II Tim. 3:15-16. All totaled, Paul exhorted Timothy to depend on the following:
A. reading and study of Scripture (I Tim. 4:13; II Tim. 3:15-16)
B. personal prophecy and spiritually imparted gift (I Tim. 1:18; 4:14; II Tim. 1:6-7
C. Paul’s own doctrine (II Tim. 1;13; 3:14—indeed the bulk of the letters themselves)
These things were the sum total of the word of truth Paul told Timothy to rightly divide.]
Now, therefore, if we accept that these letters are indeed exemplary of counsel for pastors, then we must accept them not only because they themselves have become scripture over time, but in their example as through the eyes of the first reader—ie, all pastors need access not only to scripture, but to present apostolic guidance, and direct revelation from God, if they are to have a complete arsenal.
If we dismiss the latter two as exhorted by Paul, then we have no justification for taking literally or trying to implement anything else said by Paul in these letters.
9. Peter to Christians scattered [us]:
“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” I Pt. 4:11
This is an expectation of believers to be vessels for the present revelation of God in their meetings through spiritual gifts. Again, no reference to Scripture is mandated. If such an expectation does not apply to us, neither do the encouragements in suffering later in the chapter.
10. John to all believers [us]:
“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it… But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” I Jn. 2;20-21,27
John is only restating what Jesus had first said (see #2). John tells believers that they have present access to truth and revelation, not by their natural ability to interpret scripture, but by their spiritual awareness of the Spirit of Truth in whom they are to abide. This anointing is their key to avoidance of error according to John. No reference is given to scripture study.
While this silence doesn’t minimize the importance of scripture, what is said is that abiding in spiritual awareness of truth (which means present revelation) is the key to truth. In other words, awareness of truth through sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and not scripture study, is the final reference point for truth, faith and practice.
Therefore, from John’s own testimony, I not only accept the possibility of present revelation, I live by it. Now, if this passage does not apply to us, then nothing in I John does. It is all one discourse.
11. Angel (resurrected believer) to John:
“I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Rev. 19:10
If the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, then it is plain that as long as that testimony is going forth, the spirit of prophecy is functioning. The two are commensurate.
Earlier in Revelation (12:11), that testimony in believers is credited with their success in overcoming the devil, something Revelation describes as ongoing right up until the Lord’s return, (all of which agrees with all that has already been said).
Conclusion—all believers since Christ until His return have access to present revelation (prophecy). That access forms the basis for their testimony whereby they overcome the devil (like Paul said to Timothy.) This is the Word of God, quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword. It is witnessed to throughout the Book of Acts (“the WORD OF GOD grew and multiplied” 12:24).
[A separate study on what the Word of God is would be very profitable from scripture. There is no time for this here except to say that, according to New Testament usage of the phrase “Word of God” (44 times), 39 times it has no reference to scripture but to a presently active dynamic, 4 times it could refer to either scripture or present revelation, and only 1 time does it exclusively refer to previously written scripture.
The thrust of this study is to show that the exclusive delimiting of the meaning of the “Word of God” to scripture is not itself found in scripture, but is a product of post-apostolic thinking. Therefore to me, to be “scriptural,” I have to believe in access to the Word of God as a present reality as well as through scripture itself.]
Arguments Against Present Revelation
There is the sum of my “pro” arguments which have easily persuaded me of the reality of present revelation from God. This will help you to see why I can think the way I do and can believe I hear directly from God without violating the Spirit of Scripture. In fact, I feel that my scriptural reasons far outweigh the “cons” which try to say that the Bible is the closed revelation of God for this age and there is no further access to present revelation.
Really, there are very few con arguments that actually use scripture for support. Most of them are rationalisms based on tradition or thoughtless human presupposition. But there are a few we could look at that use scripture. One was yours from Hebrews 1:1-2. We already looked at that earlier. Let’s look at a couple others I commonly encounter:
1. Paul to the Corinthians:
“Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease…But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” I Cor. 13:8-10
The argument behind this scripture says that “that which is perfect” refers to the Bible. Therefore, when the Bible was finished [which it was inasmuch as the founding apostles are gone] prophecy and tongues ceased.
The problem here is that the Bible doesn’t fulfil all the conditions of perfection described in the rest of the passage. Paul says that when perfection comes, we will see clearly and know as we are known, face to face. Well, we have the Bible, but no one using it sees “face to face” with the Lord. So we have to say this is a contrived interpretation. (If the Bible is supposed to interpret itself, then Eph. 4:13 does a much better job of describing the perfection we yet seek.)
2. John’s final testimony:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” Rev. 22:18
The argument here identifies “book” in this passage as the Bible, therefore saying that nothing can be added to the Bible nor therefore could there be further revelation.
The problem though is that “book” can’t mean Bible because it speaks specifically to “the prophecy of this book.” In other words, “book” refers only to the book of “Revelation.” The warning is against tampering with the book of Revelation, either by addition or subtraction –within the book itself.
Also, we have a similar situation from the Old Testament. In Dt. 4:2 Moses [God] says: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Yet we see that this did not preclude the possibility of further Old Testament books or prophetic revelation. The same is true concerning the book of Revelation.
So, no. This argument cannot work to preclude the possibility of ongoing revelation after the close of the canon.
Are there other con arguments from scripture? If so, I’m not aware of them. Again, most arguments I hear are based on human presuppositions about scripture and deductions from those presuppositions which scripture does not make for itself.
Now that I have finished my reasoning from Scripture, it leads me to say this: If after what I have shared, a person still has a hard time accepting the reality of present revelation, that’s fine. I won’t argue over it. But, given such a broad base of scriptural support as I have here for present revelation, I believe it is a mistake for someone else who doesn’t believe it to cut off fellowship with one who does as if he were some kind of heretic.
If a person doesn’t hear directly from God or believe that he can, that is fine. He has a right to go the way he chooses. But for such a person to condemn one who does claim to hear God directly in light of such a strong scriptural case is unjustifiable. Such condemnation can only originate from personal prejudice and threat to untested human presuppositions. This is not of God. (Such a spirit itself cannot be justified through scripture.)
The more honest and humble attitude would be to say, “Well, I don’t see it, or at least I don’t hear from God like you do, but if you do, that’s fine. I can’t fault you for that.” … The things God faults us for are attitude and spirit, not position.
There are proud “fundamentalists.” There are also proud “charismatics.” There are humble fundamentalists, and humble charismatics. There are fundamentalists and charismatics alike who bring shame to the church through word and deed. (No group has a monopoly on this.) And there are those of both “camps” who bring honour to the church.
Even if practices and beliefs must differ between the two, there is no reason why the spirit of fellowship must be strained between those in both who display humility and the kindred desire to press on in God. For me then, this is the bottom line.
Enough from me. I rest my presentation to you of what I have found to be true over this matter as pertains to scripture. I would be glad to hear from you sometime likewise. Trusting all to be well with you and family.
written from Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada
First Love Ministry
- a ministry of Anglemar Fellowship
BACK TO TOP
Page created June 15, 2015